Industry Committee on Jan. 29th, 2008

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you.

Mr. McTeague.

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

I want to support Ms. Nash's motion. I want the minister here.

This is not an amendment, but I'd like to get some feedback from committee members, pursuant to the wisdom of Mr. Cannis, and it is truly that. I'd like to see this motion read something to the effect that the committee requests that the Minister of Industry appear before the committee within the next—I'm thinking we have three weeks, we're off a week, and then we're back for three weeks—four- to six-week period.

I have questions, obviously, about this, whether he can choose to answer or not answer, Mr. Carrie, but I also have other questions, and I want to talk about a whole range of issues. I don't know how long it's going to take before we get to the estimates, but I wonder if the committee will consider the specificity of Ms. Nash's motion to deal with something that he may not be able to discuss for obvious reasons, recognizing that a number of the concerns the member has raised with respect to treaty compliance, RADARSAT-2, and consistency with the land mines treaty, all sound so much like the foreign affairs committee. That aside, this period of time would also let us know whether there is a regulatory bar that has been lifted as a result of the regulator saying yes or no.

So let's have the minister here, let's get him here in the next five weeks, and I think that would probably solve a number of concerns, rather than this back and forth about what the minister can and cannot say.

Frankly, Mr. Carrie, I think it has been six months. I know the minister will probably want to come before the committee. A whole host of issues have emerged, including some of the work we're doing on servicing, on the dollar valuation, on energy costs, on manufacturing. We've not heard from this minister, and I think this would be a great opportunity to do that, among other things.

So I'm offering it as a friendly motion to Ms. Nash. I'm trying to find what I think we all want. I want to hear from the minister.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you, Mr. McTeague.

Next I have Mr. Stanton and Ms. Nash, but before I go on, I just want to ensure that you said--it's not an amendment, but I guess it's a friendly suggestion--that the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology request that the Minister of Industry, Jim Prentice, appear before the committee in the next four to six weeks.

Do I have that correct, Mr. McTeague?

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

Yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Okay, that's the suggestion.

We'll go to Mr. Stanton and then Ms. Nash...unless, Mr. Stanton, you want Ms. Nash to respond first.

[Bruce Stanton, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

On the amendment?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

On the friendly suggestion.

[Bruce Stanton, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

By all means, because that's on the floor now. If Ms. Nash wants to respond, that would be fine.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Ms. Nash.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

I think it's perfectly reasonable to have the minister come here and to ask questions of him on a whole range of issues. What I would prefer is that we just have a vote on this motion, and if there's insufficient support, then the committee can always decide whether it would like to invite the minister at some later date to appear, to ask him very general questions. But this motion is specifically about one sale, an issue about which I have received a great deal of response from the community, and I would prefer that if there is insufficient support, we just vote on it and be done with it.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Okay. The friendly suggestion has been rejected, I guess.

Mr. Stanton gave his time to Ms. Nash, so we'll go back to Mr. Stanton, and then Monsieur Vincent and Mr. McTeague.

[Bruce Stanton, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have more of a comment than anything. I only joined this committee when we started the second session in mid-October. To my recollection, this is actually the first time we've talked about having the minister come here, after having gone full-hog into the services study and the strengthening of the dollar.

Mr. Chair, while I'm hearing a lot of indignation from the members opposite about the minister not being here, this is really the first time the topic has ever come up. In fairness, I don't disagree that the questions raised by the motion here are important questions; there's no question they deserve being looked at by our committee or the foreign affairs committee. I think they are obviously important questions that Canadians would be interested in, but we also have an obligation to conduct this in terms of the proper protocol set out by the law.

So in principle, I don't see any major objections, and I would certainly look forward, as I'm sure my colleagues would, to being in a spot a few weeks down the road when the minister can come and discuss with us some of these key issues, including the ones we've been dealing with at some length these last few months.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you, Mr. Stanton.

We'll go to Monsieur Vincent.

[Robert Vincent, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Earlier, everyone was saying that some information cannot be disclosed. However, can you tell me exactly what information we're talking about? What are we referring to?

On the other hand, if RADARSAT is sold and finds itself in the hands of the Americans, they will have access whenever they want and however they want to information in our country.

We do not have access to this information because it cannot be disclosed. However, if the Americans purchase RADARSAT, they will have access to all of the information they wish on our territory.

I would like to receive a few explanations in this respect.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

I've been letting the debate go on, but I think I will respond to Monsieur Vincent.

Ms. Nash did give me notice of this motion ahead of time, and I certainly appreciate that and the questions she's getting, because I'm getting many of these questions as well.

When I had the meeting with the clerk and the researchers on Monday, my question was whether the motion was in order. My initial reaction was that the motion was not in order. The clerk informed me that the motion, from a procedural point of view, was in order, but the researcher said that from a substantive point of view, there were some serious problems with it, in the sense that under the Investment Canada Act, the minister cannot speak to any proposed sale. The minister cannot even acknowledge there is a proposed sale; the minister cannot even talk about a hypothetical sale. That's how restricted the minister is in terms of what he can say, so I asked the researchers to give me some information to guide me as chair.

We do have Mark with us here, who has prepared a document. Unfortunately, it's in English only, so I'm not going to distribute it to the committee. Perhaps Mark can speak to it, but my understanding is that if the motion is passed as is, I don't even know if the minister could technically come to the committee or if he would come, because anything he does or says cannot even hint at anything with respect to this possible commercial transaction. That's how limited he is by the Investment Canada Act.

I'm just offering that to try to be helpful as chair. If Monsieur Vincent wants to ask Mark any more specific questions from a legal perspective as to what the minister can talk to and what he can't talk to, Mark, could you respond to those?

Monsieur Vincent.

[Robert Vincent, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

I fully understand your point of view. He is not able to talk about the sale, etc. However, the issue does not concern the sale. I don't want him to talk to us about the sale.

The question that I am asking myself is the following: If the transaction did take place and if RADARSAT were to change hands, what would the impact be on us, here in Canada? Whether or not it is sold for the sum of $10 million, $20 million or $5 billion, I could not care less. What matters is the result of the sale. It is what we sell which is significant, not the price at which it is sold. It is the satellite in question which is of significance. For me, the price has no importance.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Mark, do you want to comment on that?

If you can, identify what specifically we mean in terms of power restricted to ministers in terms of what he can say.

[Mark Mahabir, Committee Researcher]

According to the Investment Canada Act, any information related to a transaction that's being reviewed is privileged and confidential. What you're talking about are consequences of the transaction, which is a separate issue. I don't know if the minister actually has that information, and I don't know who does. That information is separate.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

As the chair, I'm trying to be helpful and I'm trying to get information from our parliamentary officers.

I have Mr. McTeague, Mr. Cannis, Mr. Carrie, and Ms. Nash.

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

Mr. Chair, with your indulgence and that of the committee's, I would amend the motion to the following. It would read up to the point of “the next two weeks”, which would be changed to:

four to six weeks, to discuss, among other things, the proposed sale of part of MacDonald, Dettwiler and Associates Ltd. to Alliant Techsystems, the decline in manufacturing and forestry or challenges facing the manufacturing and forestry industries, counterfeit and IP, and the service sector.

I don't want to be gonged by the chair for asking questions that are beyond MacDonald, Dettwiler and Associates Ltd.

This is a motion that I put before the committee. We all understand the minister will not be able to answer questions under the Investment Canada Act, but that his invitation here in the next four to six weeks deals with it, among other things.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

We want to make sure we get it.

Go ahead.

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

Mr. Chair, there is one thing. It's “to discuss, among other things, the proposed sale of part of MacDonald, Dettwiler and Associates Ltd. to Alliant Techsystems, recognizing his limitations....” There are limitations on the Investment Canada Act, but I think he can choose to say no and that's why I'm saying “discuss”. I've taken away the words “answer questions concerning the review”. Just leave it the way it is for now.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Let's have the clerk read that.

[The Clerk of the Committee, Ms. Michelle Tittley]

I will reread the motion as it would read in its entirety as amended to ensure the committee can agree to the same text:

That the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology request that the Minister of Industry, Jim Prentice, appear before the Committee in the next four to six weeks to discuss, among other things, the proposed sale of part of MacDonald, Dettwiler and Associates Ltd. to Alliant Techsystems, the challenges facing the manufacturing and forestry sectors, counterfeit and IP, as well as the service sector.

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

There was a concern raised by Mr. Cannis that we should have a comment reflecting the fact that the minister is barred from talking about the sale of MacDonald Dettwiler as a result of the Investment Canada Act. That's hard to put into a motion. Unless somebody can offer that to me now, I don't....